Vax doubt slobber continues.

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Would you advocate someone losing their literal freedom if they refuse the jab ?

That is political rather than a scientific question so not what I’m discussing on this subject. However for completeness, in terms of freedom (leaving the house) or going to the shops no I don’t and I have never heard that being suggested over here.

However keeping your job, that’s a different matter and the main crux of the article. Mandatory vaccination for workers has already been in place for a long long time (HSWA 1974) and certainly if you want to be a healthcare or laboratory worker in some sectors. They have  insisted on jabs protecting from different diseases Hep B, BCG, Varicella etc. for a long long time. The same with certain leisure destinations, so hardly new. My mum worked for the NHS as a senior podiatrist and was told no jab no job years ago.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Where does she say . 'Do not get vaccinated'  ?

She does say

which prove the alleged Delta Covid-19 variant is evading the current Covid-19 injections on offer and therefore do not prevent infection or transmission of Covid-19.

And

she concludes that mandating the public to take a vaccine is a harmful and damaging act.

So she is hardly in favour of the vaccination, if it does not protect from infection and is a harmful and damaging act then It’s not a stretch to reach my conclusion. If its just for political freedom of choice reasons then she must  also be against surgeons, laboratory staff and health care workers being vaccinated from the other diseases I mentioned as well.    

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, timps said:

she concludes that mandating the public to take a vaccine is a harmful and damaging act.

The full text.

A graduate of Yale University who also obtained a PHD at Princeton University and an MD degree from the John Hopkins University School of Medicine has published a paper in which she concludes that mandating the public to take a vaccine is a harmful and damaging act because of excellent scientific research papers which clearly demonstrate the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of Covid-19.

 She cites accepted papers , which states that the vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection , are you saying this is not true ?
Because a rising infection , hospitalisation and death rate, clearly demonstrate as we near 80 % vaxxed with both doses, and 90 % single dosed, this to be the case.
I know personally many families doubled vaxxed , who have ALL come down with covid weeks after.

But the context of the matter in the above text.
You quoted thus.

37 minutes ago, timps said:

she concludes that mandating the public to take a vaccine is a harmful and damaging act.

The word is mandating , as in coercing or forcing the public to take the vaccine , I would presume to achieve herd immunity, when this clearly isnt possible if the disease is free to travel and mutate within the supposed protected public ?
In fact, its mutation is perhaps MORE likely , as it adapts to a vaccinated population ?

 

41 minutes ago, timps said:

So she is hardly in favour of the vaccination, if it does not protect from infection and is a harmful and damaging act then It’s not a stretch to reach my conclusion. If its just for political freedom of choice reasons then she must  also be against surgeons, laboratory staff and health care workers being vaccinated from the other diseases I mentioned as well.    

You are trying very hard to turn her into some kind of lunatic anti vaxxer, by extrapolating what she has put down, into something different?
Like Docleo , you have drawn a pre emptive conclusion, because she has challenged the accepted path, which is entirely what my argument is about.

Its just about seeing the other side, without bias or ridicule.

[timps]

57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

She cites accepted papers , which states that the vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection , are you saying this is not true ?
Because a rising infection , hospitalisation and death rate, clearly demonstrate as we near 80 % vaxxed with both doses, and 90 % single dosed, this to be the case.
I know personally many families doubled vaxxed , who have ALL come down with covid weeks after.

 

I refer you to my hypothetical Swedish study in my previous post, the papers don’t state vaccines do not prevent transmission her misinterpretation and context of the data does. If you read the link you posted earlier it tells you quite clearly the problem in how she has interpreted the figures in the case studies, so I’m not saying its not true the link posted says it is not true and I just agree with them.

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/562923a1

57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The word is mandating , as in coercing or forcing the public to take the vaccine , I would presume to achieve herd immunity, when this clearly isnt possible if the disease is free to travel and mutate within the supposed protected public ?
In fact, its mutation is perhaps MORE likely , as it adapts to a vaccinated population ?

Yes but the article points to mandating in health care which has been the case for the UK since 1974 so why is she now against it?

Who says the disease is free to travel? Her wrongful interpretation of hand picked case studies ? Plenty of other case studies disagree with her on that,I posted a long post on another thread explaining it all. A percentage of people are protected from infection in those case studies just not all and as long that figure is at a high enough percentage herd immunity exists but I have no intention of going over all that again on this post here.

And no it is not perhaps MORE likely at all and I have no intention of going over that again either.

57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You are trying very hard to turn her into some kind of lunatic anti vaxxer, by extrapolating what she has put down, into something different?
Like Docleo , you have drawn a pre emptive conclusion, because she has challenged the accepted path, which is entirely what my argument is about.

Its just about seeing the other side, without bias or ridicule.

Exactly but unfortunately you are completely biased the other way, the article you posted makes these 7 points and more, the link above provides the full article should anyone want to read context:-

 

1) Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Now Pointless" is flawed

2) significantly out of context

3) Data from this report are insufficient to conclude the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

4) underrepresented because of detection bias.

5) The Daily Expose has also misinterpreted a preprint paper by the Oxford University

6) An AP fact check found the study was designed to compare how different strains of coronavirus impacted viral load, not vaccination status.

7) Contrary to Pierpont's conclusion that vaccine mandates are a "potentially harmful, damaging act," experts have agreed that while vaccines will not stop everyone from becoming infected, they do help reduce the severity.

 

So I’m not trying to say she is a lunatic anti vaxxer I’m saying as the article does she has used the data incorrectly either by design or ineptitude. Therefore, what I’m am saying is she is either an anti vaxxer or inept you can choose which. Unless she comes up with a study that backs her point i wont change my mind  but the data she is currently using does not back her stance her flawed interpretation does.

 

 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, timps said:

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Exactly but unfortunately you are completely biased the other way, the article you posted makes these 7 points and more, the link above provides the full article should anyone want to read context

I'm not biased in her favour, I've stated several times I don't necessarily agree with her, but she makes interesting points, and she has looked at peer reviewed studies and given her opinion. 

At least you have actually looked at them and disagreed, which is fair enough. 

It may turn out later she was on to something, and it may transpire she was completely wrong, it wouldn't be the first time and it definitely won't be the last. 

The point is, she does exist, she isn't a crank, and her academic qualifications check out. 

She is, like every other academic, she is  entitled to her opinions and theories, if no one is interested, then that's fine. 

The reason I even got involved in this thread is the way Docleo dismissed her because she's not singing from his song sheet. 

And there's far too much of that going on these days. 

[Mungler]

Nice work Timps 👍

Joe Biden’s wife is a Dr. She has a PhD in Educational Leadership that was given to her by a university in Delaware. Just because someone has a PhD and wishes to punt a story without any actual evidence, honestly I think that they can be dismissed out of hand. Was it Hitchins who said that which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, in short, life really is too short trying to reason with crackpots - I don’t have the energy any more and am now just mildly entertained. I applaud anyone prepared to put the hard yards in (well done Timps) but I believe there is no obligation to waste time listening to someone spouting nonsense. 

In the news today was the results of some recent research that vaccine take up in wealthy areas was very high, but very low in poor areas. Just that tells me all I need to know. 

[timps]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

The point is, she does exist, she isn't a crank, and her academic qualifications check out. 

She is, like every other academic, she is  entitled to her opinions and theories, if no one is interested, then that's fine. 

The reason I even got involved in this thread is the way Docleo dismissed her because she's not singing from his song sheet. 

And there's far too much of that going on these days.

The problem I have with her is quite simple she has ONLY used evidence that supports her narrative.

Yes she is entitled to her opinions and theories but she really does need evidence to back them up and rebut evidence that doesn’t agree with her views otherwise her opinions are those of a crank not an academic.

The one piece of evidence that condemns her as a crank in my mind is the CDC report in  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

On page 1061 It quite clearly states the limitations of the report.

 

“The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak.”

 

Therefore the authors of the report make it quite clear and not open to debate that she should not be using the data contained in the report to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the vaccines in any way shape or form.

The other three limitations also go on in detail why the data cannot be used due to detection bias, demographics and underlying health conditions.

She clearly ignores these four limitations (and as they state at least 4 they accept there could be more) and uses the bare bones figures against the authors limitations to push her theory hoping to give gravitas to her stance to those that don’t read or fully understand the report.

It begs the question why?

The only options that I can see are:-

 

1) she didn’t read the report, so she shouldn’t be commenting on it or using data in it.

2) She doesn’t understand what limitations of a report are and why they are important to the efficacy of any study or report, so she shouldn't be commenting on it or using data in it.

3) She’s a crank trying to push an agenda and purposely tried to mislead people with sound bites that she knows as a qualified professional are incorrect and shouldn’t be used as she used them.

 

As a professional that writes scientific expert witness reports any of the above makes me treat her with utter contempt no excuse.

 

Whether or not heard immunity is ever achieved or lives saved or not she will never be proved right as one thing I can be assured of, she contributed nothing to the debate. She just took data that she had nothing to do with and used it out of context.

If the CDC come back with clarification and remove the limitations then fair enough, but that just proves they are right and have done due diligence not her. Sorry rant over 😂

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Nice work Timps 👍

cheers 👍

 

 

[Mungler]

You raise an interesting issue that’s bubbled here, and that is ‘motivation’.

Much of the defence of the crackpots is along the lines of ‘they’re not doing it for any obvious gain or money’ thus the implication is that their motives must be pure / they are driven in a quest for the truth’.

You know what, it’s an attractive proposition right? But the answer is in Mr MMR himself Andrew Wakefield. Who knows why he kicked that nonsense off and when he did start down that path he didn’t know he’d land on his feet and upto his ears in cash selling his special brand of nonsense to gullible Yanks.

[timps]

16 hours ago, Mungler said:

You know what, it’s an attractive proposition right? But the answer is in Mr MMR himself Andrew Wakefield. Who knows why he kicked that nonsense off and when he did start down that path he didn’t know he’d land on his feet and upto his ears in cash selling his special brand of nonsense to gullible Yanks.

My guess is a personality flaw that seeks notoriety / media whore.

Be the poster boy / girl of a cause with your face on every conspiracy website and /  or news outlet with an agenda rather than being an obscure family doctor that no one has heard of.

Once down that rabbit hole the personality trait will not let you turn back even if that means you are struck off the medical register.

I can think of one person whose name cannot be typed on this forum does the same every time gun related issues hits the news.

There does seem to be a lot of money in this conspiracy expert business though 🤔 

It’s a good job I don’t need the money as I have just released my anti 5G radiation shooting glasses to protect from 5G eye dominance issues at only £250 a pair with free anti Bill Gates tracking score card pencil and eraser on the first 100 orders.

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by timps

[henry d]

On 13/09/2021 at 15:52, Dave-G said:

Been sent this link - opinions invited but keep in mind the fairly regular doubt stories posted around tinternet sometimes cause me to think about there being no smoke without fire. 

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/12/three-studies-find-the-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-work/

Just stop it! Have a look at what they say about their own reports; "The No.1 reason you should trust ‘The Daily Expose’ is that all our investigations are based on official data such as the Office for National Statistics, the NHS, and the UK Government, and we link back to all our sources within every article."

There is none of that in the article, they also mentioned bias, check theirs out.

[old man]

On 13/09/2021 at 16:30, Fatcatsplat said:

It stops you dying - That's good enough for me

I quite like the survival option too.

[Dave-G]

6 hours ago, henry d said:

Just stop it! Have a look at what they say about their own reports; "The No.1 reason you should trust ‘The Daily Expose’ is that all our investigations are based on official data such as the Office for National Statistics, the NHS, and the UK Government, and we link back to all our sources within every article."

There is none of that in the article, they also mentioned bias, check theirs out.

Sorry to say Henry there's smoke and fire all over this one in my mind and we all know I don't qualify as an in depth reader.

What I see is some very well educated members on here with thought process well above my spectrum segment wherever that is, also seemingly seeing smoke and flames. 

[Saltings]

6 hours ago, old man said:

I quite like the survival option too.

me too 👍 i want to live  i have projects to finish 

my parents got me jabbed  for  mmr  and polio in the early 70s  TB and diphtheria was eradicated by then dew to vaccination    had tetanus jabs many times      had flue jabs after cancer treatment      i feel **** for about three months now refuse and fair better   long term   without        covid jabs no effects  first or second   dose  if offered a booster ill take it     my immunity is shot              i want to live   

Edited September 16, 2021 by Saltings

[henry d]

6 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Sorry to say Henry there's smoke and fire all over this one in my mind and we all know I don't qualify as an in depth reader.

What I see is some very well educated members on here with thought process well above my spectrum segment wherever that is, also seemingly seeing smoke and flames. 

What you are displaying is a kind of confirmation bias, you want it to be true, so you look for the things that confirm that, everything else is rejected.

Timps has put forward a very good argument, Docleo too, and from solid backgrounds, unlike the rest of us. After looking at their input you then have to have misgivings about the paper, so next port of call is to look at the site publishing it and that is what I looked at for you, they too have a bias towards publishing what promotes their agenda.

I clicked on one of the links in the article and got this at the top of the page; "These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed" (my highlighting) so they are also looking for information that confirm their biases. Why is there still smoke, enough people have explained it for you?

[oowee]

2 hours ago, henry d said:

Why is there still smoke, enough people have explained it for you?

Rational thought process and the ability to stand back and look objectively is not for everyone. For some, their belief structure provides the foundation of their own personality. 

Far easier to go through life, collecting evidence of their own belief structure and using that to knit a fog of self evidential truth around their own lives. Standing back and analysing their own beliefs could fundamentaly undermine who they are. I think we all probably do it to some extent. 

[Rewulf]

22 minutes ago, oowee said:

Rational thought process and the ability to stand back and look objectively is not for everyone. For some, their belief structure provides the foundation of their own personality. 

Far easier to go through life, collecting evidence of their own belief structure and using that to knit a fog of self evidential truth around their own lives. Standing back and analysing their own beliefs could fundamentaly undermine who they are. I think we all probably do it to some extent. 

Never more true words put down. 

We have to accept though that this really does apply to everyone. 

Where is the truth? We all think we know it. 

In reality, most of the time it's somewhere in the middle of two opposing views. 

[henry d]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

think we all probably do it to some extent

Absolutely

[Dave-G]

19 hours ago, henry d said:

Absolutely

I can easily agree with that, keeping in mind that I'm fully aware I have a mental block reading any lengthy text. I've heard it said I have a very low attention span/boredom threshold and recall I used to gaze out the window in school instead of absorbing what teacher was 'rambling' on about. There was generally a lecture and more from father when he read my school reports.

Long story short then I guess its fair to say I take in more of the first few paragraphs of whats being said or written much more than being able to absorb whats deeper into it. I just wish there was less horse twaddle about for people like me to wonder about. 

[WalkedUp]

4 hours ago, Dave-G said:

I have a mental block reading any lengthy text.

Same here. I do not read: badly formatted text, unattractively laid out documents, lengthy writing, text with grammatical and or spelling errors. Unless the text was written by me.

Edited September 18, 2021 by WalkedUp